from the wide shot, yeah, it seems impossible to miss. But when they go in for the close up, you can see how the ball had a backspin to it or something when it was being passed (someone more experienced in football can explain it better than I can).

rotational physics is a bitch, yo!

I agree with both @heropsycho and @Psychologic .

People comfortable with online sharing often refuse to acknowledge the cost of content creation. Since the cost of distribution is now seemingly free, there will always be an incentive to profit off of the costless distribution without being burdened by the cost of content creation. It's always cheaper to copy and sell than it is to create and sell. Therefore attempting to make money off some bits you strung together is a tough road. Someone can always sell those same bits and undercut your costs (barring any costs of overcoming technological or legal barriers to copying like they've been creating). In the long run, the continued status quo will almost certainly decrease the signal to noise ratio of content. Indeed, it already has. Fewer and fewer choose to make costly-to-produce content, and more and more are making lolcats and fart apps.

At the same time the industry refuses to acknowledge that the creation of many forms of content is forever democratized. The cost of recording what I'd consider a high quality album, for example, can now be borne by a dude in his mom's basement. He could even include some distribution and marketing. What service does the record industry really provide at that point? Editorial input? Yup... that's about it. In other words, the old media record industry could at this point be replaced by a handful of trustworthy blogs, and I don't know, something like Rhapsody? I subscribe because it's easier than pirating and managing a music library, I get nearly unlimited music, and I get to feel like I'm supporting artists. If I really like a band I find, I might even go to their show or buy their merchandise. I care about supporting the artists. Not dead tree media companies that were out innovated. If they had any sense they'd focus on their core business which is a reputation for suggesting high quality content. Further, they should focus on building that reputation with listeners, not retailers (something they abandoned long ago). They don't even need to worry about the rights to the content. Without an audience they have no product. They might as well close up shop.

Where I will agree, however, is in the realms where the cost of creating the content is substantially higher, for example big-budget film or video games. Still, I'd argue these industries aren't suffering to the same extent because as has been pointed out people still go to the movies, or game online. That is, they've still created a tiered distribution model that makes it an easier or a substantially better experience to pony up a few bucks to check it out. Even after a run in the theaters you can get napster or hit your local video store (not that anyone does that anymore, again, because they were out innovated).

Love the close-up of the wheelbarrow full of air at 1:03, looks like mercury.

>> ^Sagemind:

I understand what he is saying, and aside from all the course language, he has a point.
(because youth today is far too "entitled" and he's right as to how they got that way.)
BUT
His argument falls apart because the economy has changed. If the economy was the same as it was even 20 years ago (never-mind 35-40 years ago in the 70s) and this attitude of youth existed, then I'd completely agree - but it isn't. Today's economy says I can't feed my family and own my own house, even with two full-time incomes in the household. I work damn hard, I'm not a slacker.
I may not run my own company but, my job, as it is today, and would have been 20 years ago, would have paid the bills and allowed some extra cash to take my family on a holiday once a year. My wife would have been able to stay home with the kids, at least part-time.
I bought a house. It cost me $400,000. Ten years ago, the same house was valued at $140,000-170,000.
Twenty-one years ago, when my house was built, it cost $100,000 brand new. Wages, on the other hand, haven't changed all that much. As I left high school, people with good jobs were making $19-25 an hour working at the mill. Today, the wages are much the same. No one is making 300% more for the same job they were doing 20 years ago. So why has housing gone up, why has everything gone up(fuel, food etc.)? The truth is I can't afford a $400,000 house, no regular person can, but what choice do I have, the cheapest rental I could find was $200 more than what my mortgage payment is.
It's the economy, it's the banks, It's globalization, It's International Trade, It's Corporations buying up all the little guys and then jacking up the prices, paying employees less and paying all the politicians to stay out of their way.
His analogy about seeing Mr. Rich and respecting him in the old days and slamming him today also doesn't stand. Today, very few people own their own business and are successfully wealthy. Most small businesses are barley hanging on, operating in the shadows of the companies like Wal-Mart. Most small businesses need to barrow money to set up shop. These businesses pay more tax and interest than they ever did.
In the sixty's to late eighties, both of my uncles owned their own businesses. They were very successful and made a decent living and had many employees. Life was good. That bubble popped in the late eighties to nineties not because business was decreasing but because new governments raised business and property taxes to the point that, they both had to close up their shops. Taxes more than doubled over night and the interest on banking skyrocketed.
So Adam's rant is fun. It makes a good point about entitlement and winy brats wanting reward without working for it but that's it. It doesn't explain Occupy of the financial state every one is in now.
Period.


we should be happy that all the increases in wage/salary/benefit that we should have been getting over the last 30yrs have been going to a small group of individuals

we should be happy that money is allowing for the degradation of rights and civil liberties

we should be happy that every noble endeavor should be stifled and made irrelevant for the sole reason of monetary gain

we should be happy that our elected officials blatantly lie to our faces, and serve only their greed, and thus the whims of those with money... and not so much individuals as much as corporate interests... corporations who while now given the same "rights" as humans, bear none of the responsibility... either to their local communities or to the nation they are now a "citizen" of

we should be happy that education is becoming something you pay off over your life as opposed to something nutured and pushed by your nation, because it's how we seize the future and progress as a society... better we become ignorant and uneducated so that we are easier to control and are reduced to grunt manual servitude to our feudal lords

we should be happy the rich get bailed out; are allowed to gamble with our money consequence free... then because of it, we lose our home and our children lose their future

better we lose our right to privacy than be subjected to invisible boogeymen
better we lose our freedom of speech than be allowed to exercise it

i honestly hope not... but I can't help feeling the road back to sanity starts with the rolling heads of politicians and bankers... and I don't mean that metaphorically

i honestly hope they have the humanity to overcome their greed... because no amount of money will overcome the fury of the masses... right now the bear is waking up... best not poke it with a stick

I understand what he is saying, and aside from all the course language, he has a point.
(because youth today is far too "entitled" and he's right as to how they got that way.)

BUT

His argument falls apart because the economy has changed. If the economy was the same as it was even 20 years ago (never-mind 35-40 years ago in the 70s) and this attitude of youth existed, then I'd completely agree - but it isn't. Today's economy says I can't feed my family and own my own house, even with two full-time incomes in the household. I work damn hard, I'm not a slacker.

I may not run my own company but, my job, as it is today, and would have been 20 years ago, would have paid the bills and allowed some extra cash to take my family on a holiday once a year. My wife would have been able to stay home with the kids, at least part-time.

I bought a house. It cost me $400,000. Ten years ago, the same house was valued at $140,000-170,000.
Twenty-one years ago, when my house was built, it cost $100,000 brand new. Wages, on the other hand, haven't changed all that much. As I left high school, people with good jobs were making $19-25 an hour working at the mill. Today, the wages are much the same. No one is making 300% more for the same job they were doing 20 years ago. So why has housing gone up, why has everything gone up(fuel, food etc.)? The truth is I can't afford a $400,000 house, no regular person can, but what choice do I have, the cheapest rental I could find was $200 more than what my mortgage payment is.

It's the economy, it's the banks, It's globalization, It's International Trade, It's Corporations buying up all the little guys and then jacking up the prices, paying employees less and paying all the politicians to stay out of their way.

His analogy about seeing Mr. Rich and respecting him in the old days and slamming him today also doesn't stand. Today, very few people own their own business and are successfully wealthy. Most small businesses are barley hanging on, operating in the shadows of the companies like Wal-Mart. Most small businesses need to barrow money to set up shop. These businesses pay more tax and interest than they ever did.

In the sixty's to late eighties, both of my uncles owned their own businesses. They were very successful and made a decent living and had many employees. Life was good. That bubble popped in the late eighties to nineties not because business was decreasing but because new governments raised business and property taxes to the point that, they both had to close up their shops. Taxes more than doubled over night and the interest on banking skyrocketed.

So Adam's rant is fun. It makes a good point about entitlement and winy brats wanting reward without working for it but that's it. It doesn't explain Occupy of the financial state every one is in now.
Period.

Yes, Animatrix is essential Matrix viewing. The Second Renaissance pt 1&2 is what Matrix Reloaded should have been.

I saw Dreamcatcher in theatres back in 2003 because they showed the premiere of Final Flight of the Osiris (Animatrix segment 3) as an accompanying short. Was totally worth it, even if I had to sit through Dreamcatcher afterwards. If you haven't seen Dreamcatcher, there is a large focus on aliens that come out your asshole and you know you have an alien in your ass because you can't stop farting powerfully. Not joking, there are full scenes which are meant to be serious in which actors are grimacing in medium close-up while loud farting noises are laid on top.

As the original video has completely overshadowed this one (which in my opinion gives a more close-up & therefore BETTER view of what happened)......this vid isn't getting the attention it deserves, so:-

*Doublepromote
*Quality

Thanks for sharing

I think all religious texts were written by people with sincere beliefs... so whats the difference? the number of different authors of the bible makes it more valid than other religion's texts? and whose christianity is the right versions of the textsts and interpretations? After 2000 years of pondering the texts does christianity stand together as a united whole?

>> ^shinyblurry:

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.
That there is no Devil in Judaism is widely and readily known. Claims placing him in the Old Testament are contradicting that text, the supposedly infallible word of God. This is Christian retconning in order to close up plot holes and create a more subversive religion that can better be used to control the masses through fear and intimidation.

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:



>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^shinyblurry:
There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.
That there is no Devil in Judaism is widely and readily known. Claims placing him in the Old Testament are contradicting that text, the supposedly infallible word of God. This is Christian retconning in order to close up plot holes and create a more subversive religion that can better be used to control the masses through fear and intimidation.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.

That there is no Devil in Judaism is widely and readily known. Claims placing him in the Old Testament are contradicting that text, the supposedly infallible word of God. This is Christian retconning in order to close up plot holes and create a more subversive religion that can better be used to control the masses through fear and intimidation.

So there's a japanese restaurant I spend a lot of time at and for a long time I'd see a man playing the morin huur. I only knew vaguely about throat singing at first so I enjoyed it but didn't think much about it. Until one day I actually noticed that most of those sounds weren't coming from his instrument. I am blown away every time I hear this. It's amazing to hear this type of singing and even more stunning to witness close up.

It's quite a leap from me saying that unions comprised of government employees are ultimately economically unfeasible to interpreting that as a desire to destroy unions and stifle debate. Debate all you want. The writing is on the wall for all of our government employees. All the states are in trouble. I just picked California as an example. As far as that goes, I am glad you agree that they have made their system F.U.B.A.R. Unfortunately, they aren't the only ones.

Here is another example: the United States Postal Service. A package sent to me this last week by the USPS cost $8.40. I returned the exact same package to the same sender by UPS for $7.07. Yet UPS realized a 62% increase in profits last year while the Post Office went into the tank. Why did it tank? The US Postal Service would have shown a net profit of $76 million in April had it not been for the $458 million charge for future retiree health benefits (RHBTF) imposed by Congress. In other words, the USPS would have made money if it weren't for the fact that it is paying into a retirement fund that is so onerous that it is going to break the bank before it can pay many of those retirements. The post office is now discussing closing up to 3,700 branches. Those workers are going to be out of a job; real people, with real lives and real families. So it causes me to think: I wonder if they would rather have a job with retirement that looks similar to the rest of the country's private sector retirements, or be promised a larger retirement and end up with neither a job nor a retirement.

What is important is this: some of the unions made up of government employees are fighting to save a future comprised of an empty bag. The money they are fighting to set back for their members isn't going to be able to be paid. The discussion isn't whether or not we are for or against unions. Unions have done much good for the working conditions in the US. Right now that is beside the point. The discussion is this: how are we going to arrange ourselves together to make this whole unworkable system work. I'm beginning to believe that we don't have the capacity any longer to do so. >> ^Yogi:

>> ^silvercord:
Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.

"Old Hippie"? With the Doctrine that you are espousing here, I'd call you anything but an old hippie. Just because California fucked up it's pensions doesn't mean there shouldn't be public sector unions.
If you don't agree just look at what QM posted and go by the sift rule that everything and anything he says is fucking the opposite.
You can't consider yourself on the left and disapprove of unions period. You can disagree with what the unions are fighting for or how much power they have but not that they exist.
If you want to destroy a union you're not on the left, you don't have the peoples best interest in mind and you wish to stifle debate.

The fuck is with the slow push to extreme close-up and the drag on the cigarette?

Ok, I upvote even though I really have seen this bit a number of times

He gets a little harsh towards 20 year old in this, but his great truth, which anyone should take away from it is: DO YOUR FUCKING JOB, and do it well.

If you don't like your current job then spend time looking for one you'd prefer to do, but still do your current job WELL.

I know people who are just like this and it shits me so much, because it's exactly the thing that stops them getting anywhere in life. They don't climb the ladder of success because they never have a good reference, they never show how damn good they can be at the shitty jobs so they get noticed, or come away with a great reference, to move on to the next, bigger, better job and so on.

Being shit at the shit jobs means you'll always do the the shit jobs. Be great at the shit jobs and people Fucking NOTICE. They DO...

My first real job (not counting delivery medicine by bike or working in Pizza Hut) was answering ALL the email an ISP got.. ALL of it, just me handling all complaints, queries, support requests... pretty mind numbing really... but you know what, when I left that company I was a lead client software developer, creating code to run on AT&T's customer's computers nation wide... and then when that company closed up I was recommended on to another company where I work today.

All because I DID THE SHITTY JOBS WELL.

It's a HUGE truth that is really important for doing well in this world, and as Louis points out, there are those who don't get it.

Hey look, America, your health care just fucking rocks doesn't it?

Absolutely stunning that you still have to pay for life saving treatments.

Our son just had his (hopefully) last heart surgery, to put a little device in to close up a hole left after the last surgery... we just received a statement which details how much money that little device cost (not the cost of the surgery mind you, just the device).

$10,000

Wow, I'm sure fricken glad that we are not out of pocket one cent for that, because that's an insane amount of money. And if it DID cost us that much money we'd have to weigh up whether we could really afford it, or whether you should leave our 8 year old son to have lower blood oxygen levels than he should have while we save money.

I would be scared shitless living in America. Even WITH private health care there you'd forever be afraid that the company would pull your cover based on a 'pre-existing condition' or similar.